I heard this one was pretty good (hah!). So... as a non-fan of Star Trek (all this awesome technology and alien races and shit! let's.... talk about it... around tables... forever... then when there's action we'll set our phasers to "pussy") and a hesitant audience to J.J. Abrams, This was downgraded to lukewarm curiosity. Grounds for pleasant surprises?

Nah. I mean it's not a bad movie. Some of the banter was cool, but I feel like it's just another Star Trek story gussied up with lens flares and self-references. I'll give them this: the story explains a reboot of the series very well. However, do people really care how things like this happen? It's a movie, you can do anything you want. If it's a reboot just say it's a reboot in the ad campaign and that's good enough. It's all jibber jabber anyway, why do i care how somehow this James Kirk's dad dies when Shatner had a dad... Seems like there's more important stuff to cover, like why the Romulans needed a gigantic chain hanging down into the atmosphere just to shoot a laser. Couldn't they just shoot the laser from space? And if we're really talking about Star Trek nerdy realistic physics and whatnot, why build the Enterprise on Earth where it's constrained by gravity and will need to exit the atmosphere? Oops, because it looked cool I guess. Lens flare! So realistic! beh..

And I feel like the new Kirk got an even trade-off between his piercing blue eyes and his acne scars. I guess if people are hypnotized by your glare they won't notice your gnarly neck.

So I guess this movie didn't convert me into a trekkie after all. It was better than most of the Star Trek movies though in that it had some action elements and at least moved at a decent clip rather than mire down in too many tribunals, hearings, conferences, and tet a tets.

Comments?

You can use this form to send me an email. Name and E-mail Address fields are optional, but in order to prove that you are not a heartless spam robut, you must answer this simple movie trivia question.